E 713 
.C53 
Copy 1 



7\^ 



^y. 




^^^ 





y^^u^L^^^z^^L^ //^^^^-^'^ 




9, 



Acquisition of icriitory— Wc should t;il(c no Partnership in liic 
Social and I'olitical Troubles of the Old World. 



SPEECH 




:> «5f ^ 



HON. HORACE CHILTON, 



\ ' y\' 



■\ 



OF TEXAS, 



SHNATK OF THE UNITED STATES, 



SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1899. 



W-A. SHINOTON. 

1899. 






mil 







,C53 



Con::. 'd Off.' 



SPEECH 

ov 

HON. H E A E C 1 1 1 L T X . 



On the .Joint resolution (S. R. 211) declaring that the United States disclaim 
any intention to exercise vjcrmanent sovereignty over the Philippine 
Islands, and assert their deferniiuation, when a stable and independent 
government shall have been erected therein, to leave the government of 
the islands to their own people- 
Mr. CHILTON said: 

Mr. Prksi dent : The pending treaty of peace between the United 
States and Spain, which has been made pnblic by order of the 
Senate, contains three main articles. By Article I Spain relin- 
qnishes all claim of title to Cuba. By Article II Spain cedes to 
the United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands under 
Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies and the island of Guam in 
the Ladrones. By Article III Spain makes cession of the archi- 
pelago known as the Philippine Islands and the United States 
agree to pay Spain $','0. 000,000. 

There are other dependent articles, the most important of which 
is, probably. Article VII, by which the two Governments relinquish 
all claim for indemnity on the part of either Government or its 
citizens against the other Government arising out of the troubles 
in Cuba, and in which the United States agree to settle such claims 
on the part of our citizens against Spain. This may develop into 
an obligation of many millions against our Government. The 
amount has not been estimated with any approximate accuracy. 
Mr. President, the first two articles of the treaty present nij 
dilficulties. We are satisfied with a relinquishment of Cuba to 
its own people. Few Senators object to taking a cession of Puerto 
Rico, which lies in the Western Hemisphere. The island of 
Guam, in the Ladrones, is not more than two or three times as 
large as the District of Columbia, and contains a population of 
only four or five thousand. It is a convenient size for a coaling 
and naval station, and we would have no perplexities of govern- 
ment for future settlement. 

The article relating to the Philippines is the one upon which 
our difterences of opinion turn. 

Mr. President, I am not an anti-expansionist. I believe that it is 
the duty and the interest of this country to widen its boundaries 
as time goes on. But 1 would not do this indiscriminately. In 
case of doubt, I would adhere closely to the policy of the fore- 
fathers. 

In my judgment the taking of the Philippines will bring peril 
both to the interests and the institutions of the American people. 
It is not an acquisition which will add to the comfort and glory 
of the Republic, like that of Louisiana, or Florida, or Texas, or 
New Mexico and California. 

4165 3 



6 

the territory of the United States. That has been the common 
construction of our Constitution for the last one hundred years. 

But suppose that danger could be safeguarded by legislation. 
Where under our Constitution would you find the" authority to 
keep the productions of the Filipinos, manufactured in their own 
homes, from coming unimpeded to the ports of the United States? 
In Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheat., 317), Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, speaking for the court, said: 

The eighth section of the first article [of the Constitution] gives to Consrresa 
the "i^ower to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," for the 
purpo-es thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation 
as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the Government 
extends. 

That is strong enough. 

The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be 
exorcised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this 
term designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire? 

He then goes on to answer the question: 

It [the United States] is the name given to oiir great Republic, which is 
composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia or the terri- 
tory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland 
or Pennsylvania: and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Consti- 
tution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises 
should be observed in the one than in the other. 

The idea was advanced here a few days ago that Congress pos- 
sessed a higher power over unorganized territory than that which 
it had over organized Territories; but when this decision was ren- 
dered the greater part of the territory west of the Missouri River, 
to which Chief Justice Marshall referred, was unorganized terri- 
tory. This language applies to all the territory, as he says, which 
belongs to the United States. 

The same principle is practically outlined in the case of Cross 
vs. Harrison (16 Howard). From a consideration of these opin- 
ions and the nature of our Government and institutions, it would 
seem clear that whenever any territory is brought within this 
American "empire," so called, it becomes subject to the same 
constitutional principles which limit Congress in regard to that 
which we now possess. 

I can not believe that it will be within the power of Congress to 
prescribe a rate of duty on foreign goods brought into the Philip- 
pine Islands differing from the duty on same goods when brought 
into Texas, Maine, or California, nor can national legislation fix a 
tariff on importations which pass from the Philippine Islands to 
other parts of this country higher than the tax on importations 
which pass from the Territory of Arizona or the District of 
Columbia into any existing State or Territory. 

Mr. President, the laboring people of this country have caught 
the alarm. They understand the nature of this gi-ave and radical 
departure. 

Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Texas allow me to 
interrupt him and ask him a question? 

Mr. CHILTON. Certainly. 

Mr. FORAKER. Do I understand the Senator to contend that 
the constitutional provision requiring uniformity in the levying 
of impost duties woiild apply to importations from the Philippines 
into other States and Territories of the United States? 

Mr. CHILTON. Undoubtedly, reasoning from the decisions of 
the Supreme Court. 

4165 



Mr. FORAKER. I call the Senator s attention to the fact that 
the term " duties upon imports and exports.'" as used in the Con- 
stitution of the United states, has been hold by the Supremi; 
Court to apply only to imports and exports from and to foreign 
countries, and not to imports and exports from one State to another 
or from one Territory to another of tlie United States. Therefore 
that rule of the Constitution would have no application at all to 
exports into thiscountry fromthoPhilippinelslandsif they should 
be made a part of the United States, and no application \vhatever 
to transactions between the United States and the Pliilippine 
Islands; audit would bo competent for any State of the Union, if 
it saw fit to do so, to protect itself in any way it might see fit by 
the levying of import duties upon importations from the Philip- 
pine Islands. 

If the Senator will allow me, I will call his attention to a case 
reported in 8 Wallace. The Senator may have overlooked it. It 
is the case of Woodiuft' vs. Parham, where it was held by the 
Supreme Court, reading only from the syllabus: 

Tho term "import," as used in that clause of the Constitution wliieli says 
that "no State shall levy any imposts or duties ou imports or exports," does 
not refer to articles imported from one State into another, but only to arti- 
cles imported from foreign countries into the U'nited States. 

And the court, in this opinion, went on to say that wherever the 
term '-imports or exports" is used in the Constitution relation is 
had to foreign importations and exportations and not to transac- 
tionsbetween theStates or Territories of the United States. There- 
fore, imports from the Philippines that would be prejudicial to 
labor would not be beyond the reach of Congress to regulate. 

Mr. CHILTON. I differ with the Senator in regard to that 
proposition. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am only stating what the Supreme Court 
has held. 

Mr. CHILTON. I can not concede that the case referred to de- 
cided the question here involved. It arose under the clause of the 
Constitution limiting the levying of duties by States. Even in 
that aspect it has been superseded by later decisions holding that 
taxes by one State on importations from another are void because 
they constitute a regulation of interstate commerce. 

We are now speaking of the powers of Congress. Is it within 
the power of the Congress of the United States to declare that 
goods which come from Arizona to the District of Columbia shall 
pay a certain rate of duty or a certain rate of tax— I do not care 
what you call it— and that goods which come from Texas to the 
District of Columbia shall pay another rate? Certainly not. 

I will quote part of section 8, Article I, of the Constitution: 

* * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States. 

Now, if a tax should be laid on goods brought from Manila to 
San Francisco or New York, even 'if not a duty or impost, it would 
fall within the definition of the word " excise,"' and would be 
invalid if higher than like excises on goods from other ports of 
our country to New York or San Francisco. 

But I was about to show the views of our labor organizatitins in 
regard to this question. I received lately a protest from one of 
these bodies, which I will read in part: 

The undersigned delegates desire to present briefly the reasons whvthe 
Cigar Makers' International Union of America, an organization coraposl-d of 
il65 



8 

31,500 members, located in 357 cities and towns, is opposed to the annexation 
of the Philippine Islands by the United States. 

I. Because the bulk of the cigars manufactured in the Philippine Islands 
are sold at a price of ,*5 to $10 per thousand in United States currency. This 
statement is verified by Edward W. Harden, special commissioner, in his 
report on the financial and industrial conditions of said country (page 23). 

II. Because the exportation of cigars m 1896 from Manila amounted to 
191,130,OW), which, within a few years, under American energy and direction, 
would increase to the extent of endangering our home industry. 

III. Because the cheap labor of the islands, subsisting mostly on rice and 
vegetables, would enable a few manufacturers to flood the United States 
with tliis product, thus tending to paralyze our home market. 

IV. Because the development of the industry in the archipelago would 
throw thousands of Americans employed at making cigars out of work and 
reduce the standard of wages to the Asiatic level, which averages from 15 
cents to 25 cents per day. 

V. Because all barriers that now limit competition between these produc- 
ing forces would be swept aside, and new conditions created most disastrous 
to the moral, social, and material welfare of the American working people. 

VI. Because the annexation of the Philippine Islands will not change the 
Asiatic habits and customs of the laboring population, but will, in course of 
time, reduce the American standard of living to a level bordering on pau- 
perism. 

VII. Because the welfare of 150,000 employees and small manufacturers 
and their families, depending upon this industry for a living in the United 
States, is of vastly more importance to the nation than the increase of com- 
merce expected by a few commercial centers. 

VIII. Because it would nullify, in substance, the Chinese exclusion act, the 
alien contract labor law, and immigration laws, for which organized labor 
has contended for the last twenty-flve years. 

Mr. PLA.TT of Connecticut. Mr. President, I do not want to 
interrupt the Senator or delay him, but I do wish just at this 
point to say that after a very careful study of the situation I am 
firmly of the belief that none of the natives can come from the 
Philippine Islands into the United States unless Congress gives 
permission, nor can any free goods come from there into the United 
States unless Congress provides for it. 

Mr. CHILTON, Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut 
can not speak for the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
laboring people of this country will hardly have a sufficient guar- 
anty in his emphatic contention on this subject. So long as the 
Philippine people are held in allegiance to the Government of the 
United States you can not deny them the rights which belong to 
other persons who owe allegiance to our Government. Congress 
has no power to make discriminations between the people who owe 
a common obligation to a common Federal sovereignty. This 
Government was founded upon the proposition that all who served 
the Republic should have equality of right. 

And why are we asked to take up these puzzles? Why are we 
asked to run the risk of admitting large numbers of Chinese and 
crossbreeds of Chinese and INIestizos into this Republic, to say 
nothing of the vast Malay millions which stand behind them? In 
the Philippine Islands to-day are more than 500,000 Chinese and 
descendants of Chinese. Tliey mainly inhabit the city of Manila 
and other towns. 

Those people are laborers, merchants, and traders, and when 
we open the doors by the annexation of these islands we will 
bring into competition with our home people more alien pauper 
laborers than would come here in a hundred years under the or- 
dinary operation of our immigration laws. And for what? For 
islands which, in my judgment, have been vastly exaggerated in 
fertility and value. The sensational journals of this country have 
saturated the public mind with the idea that if we give up the 
41C5 



9 



Philippine Islands we will -ive up a miue of wealth and an oppor- 
tunity never to return aj^ain. ^auuppor 
My Investigations do not confirm these highly colored estimates 
^t.'^.T^Tr °^ *>^ Philippines would no doubt fmprove^nle; 

mnalSlvif"'^"''^'^-^"^^^'''"* ^* ^^'^ it would make hut I 
small ft.^'ure in our national resources. The imports and exports 

exports of the Philippines are in a year 

^vnif"f "!f^-'^';^f^''^ themselves by daydreams about securing a 
g eat trade m China and Japan from the standpoint of the Philip 
pines. But I have seen town-lot booms before. I have seen sober 
men^ntoxicate themselves with visions of railroads whose char^ 
ters alone tel the story of their existence and of great cities whffh 
the census taker never found. 
A widening commerce with those far-off lands should ever be an 

wnl'^f ''fi'^'J" '^^'^: ^^^ S'^^'-'*^* P^">^ in old Democratic da3s 
was the first man to unlock the doors of Japan to American trade! 
iJut to propel that commerce it is not necessary to assume the 
responsibility of governmental administration. 

wh->>f ™°f* ^''''^ this Government surrender all the advantages 
T\ h.ch come from our glorious Eastern victory. I would ask one 
or more coaling and navai stations in the Philipniues so ih^t 
&fr'^' 7' had unwilling trouble upon tKa we m ght 
have a base of operations in that quarter of the world 

iiut 1 would rather have a treaty which gave free entry to Ameri- 
can productions-yes, ten thousand times rather have it-than a 

SimlonTof ?^e pTlip^p^^^^ °^ *^^ '"-^''•'-' -^ --^ 

m/- ?.^1^^^^^Y. Will the Senator permit me? 
nJp«H^^^^?^?^ OFFICER (Mr. Gallixger in the chair). 
""Mr.^CmLTON'^TersI^ '''''' '' *'^ """^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ 

^^" ^"^rf r^^^^"- ^^ ^'^® contention of the Senator from Con- 
necticut [Mr. Platt] be correct, and the Philippines coS absS- 
1 tely under the sovereignty of Congress, and 'are not citizens of 

thiy any'rilhS"'' '^ ^'"''^ °^ ^"^"^'"^ '^^*"' ^^^^ ^^'^^ slJe 

giJ'e'h^itnL'the'tSf"'- ^"^' "^"* ^°°^^^^ ^^^^^ *^ 

hJ^r'^;^''^^^^^?: AJ^^^I^- *^^"' ^s^' t^e Senator whether, if that 
be true m regard to the Philippines, it is not true with re-ard to 

UnitTd'sS' °^ ^'^ ^"^'"^ "'^"^ °*^^^ Territory^f the 
4.1 ""^o" P^-^TT of Connecticut. I do not w.\^h to interfere witli 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Chiltox]. but I will say with reSrd 
to the inhabitants of the Territories of New Mexi( o and Arizoia 
rni^erTqM^fr^^'',?^^*l^'!i^^'"^« ^^'' Constitution and laws of the 

Mr Cmr Tn^P^'A?^^?>*^'''f- A¥* °^^^^'^« ^^^^ distinction. 
PnrAf;,^? P^' v'^^'\^''^''^^'^"*' ^ 1^'^^^ looked "ito that question 
fi^Iw IF^- ^,«c?r*^in^ to tliat theory, all wo have to do to with- 
draw the protectwn of the Constitution from the ptoi)le -f Arizona 
and New Mexico i.s to repeal that statute; and I do not believe fo? 

Te?iSorie?of f h «* '" ^T°T^ "^^'^^ ^^ *^^ I^^^"'P'« ^^-^'O inhabit the 
lerutories of this country depend upon any such slender lounda- 

JJr ?^TH^S?<r ^l^y ^ ""^^ t^e Senator a question? 
Mr. CHILTON. Certainly. . 



4165 



10 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators desiring to interrupt a 
Senator on the tioor will please get consent from the Chair. 

Mr. NELSON. I desire to ask the Senator from Texas a prac- 
tical question, not for the purpose of interrupting him. When 
we annexed Alaska did all the Indians and natives of that country 
become citizens of the United States, or what was the condition 
of the natives of that country after they were annexed? 

Mr. CHILTON. Mr. President, under our Constitution the 
Indians occupy a peculiar situation, and no decision and no ar.uu- 
ment founded upon the relation of the American Indian to the 
people of this country and to our Constitution is worth any thing- 
whatever. • 

Mr. President, I have spoken of the internal difficulties which 
will present themselves. In my judgment, they form but the 
smallest part of the gravity of this situation. Whenever we go 
over into the Philippine Islands great external problems will loom 
up. Wliat becomes of our Monroe doctrine? What is that Mon- 
roe doctrine? It is a beautiful principle, which blends the inter- 
ests of all the people of the American republics to the south of 
us with the interests of this great nation. 

Under that Monroe doctrine, to which this country has been 
pledged in every conceivable way, and which took its place in the 
international law when President Cleveland issued his celebrated 
warning to England which brought that great Empire to agree to 
an arbitration with the Venezuelan Republic upon the question 
of boundary — we say to the world that the Western Hemisphere 
shall constitute a section of the earth with which the mighty pow- 
ers of Europe shall have no concern. In the interest of peace the 
United States will not dislodge European colonies already estab- 
lished, but their boundaries are fixed. Neither by war, purchase, 
voluntary cession, vote of the people, nor in any conceivable way 
shall a single foot of new territory upon this hemisphere be added 
to European dominion. 

In some respects this is a hard doctrine, but it is a doctrine of 
virtue and necessity. To say to all the great powers of Europe 
that they will never be permitted to take in territory anywhere 
in North, South, or Central America is something to touch the 
pride of kings and emperors across the wafer. 

Suppose that Germany should have a conflict with Brazil, and 
her war ships should lay siege to and capture Rio Janeiro, as Ma- 
nila was captured by us. 

If , then, the Brazilian Government, in order to make a peace, were 
to propose to cede Rio Janeiro to Germany as a part of the settle- 
ment, could she do it? No. At that moment the great, strong 
voice of the American Republic would speak to the German Gov- 
ernment, " Stay thy hand, for we are sworn that no government 
of the Old World shall ever hereafter acquire another foot of soil 
upon the domain of the New." 

Mr. PETrUS. By force? 

Mr. CHILTON. No. sir; not by force alone. The Monroe doc- 
trine goes further. The principle is universal in its sweep and 
interdicts every species of acquisition by European powers. 

It would be hard to find a citizen of the Union who would give 
up that Monroe doctrine. 

We will say to the powers of the Old World, " We will not 
allow you to acquire further possessions in the Western Hemi- 
sphere. Yet Ave will take Porto Rico, and we reserve the right to 

4165 



11 

take Haiti or Brazil or Cuba or any other part of Xorth or South 
America when we tliink projjer to do so." 

But after saying this, after reserving? that liberty, will we po 
across into Asia and enter into a wolfish rivalry for land, and will 
we take and keep all that wo feel disposed to take and keep? Mr. 
President, all the moral power of the Monroe doctrine will dis- 
appear whenever we are brought to that extremity. 

There is a corollary from the xMonroe doctrine which is stated 
by President Monroe himself and the other great statesmen of 
America. That deduction is that, while we will not allow the 
governments of the Old World to add any further territory to 
their present colonies on this side of the water, neither will we 
take a hand in the affairs of the Old World; and when we abandon 
that position and go over into the Eastern Hemisphere we will 
discredit the Monroe doctrine during all time. The principle will 
have been extracted: its truth and loftiness will have been lost, 
and it will become simply a doctrine of brute force on the part of 
the United States. 

Again, Mr. President, when we go over into the Philippines we 
have thrown ourselves upon the red-hot stove of international poli- 
tics in the Eastern Hemisphere. When we go we find, in the first 
place, that goveniments over there do not settle matters, each for 
itself. You find over there what is known as the "Concert of 
Europe. " A short time ago Greece had a war with Turkey. Tur- 
key overran Greece; and had it in her power to force terms upon 
the Grecian monarchj-. 

But the powers of Europe took a hand. Russia, Germany, Eng- 
land, France, Austria, and Italy, forming the concert of Europe, 
intervened, and they said, "We are going to have something to 
say about how this treaty of peace shall be made. " They demanded 
that the treaty of peace be settled according to certain principles; 
' ' the balance of power must be conserved ; " and so Turkey, after she 
had won a conclusive victory over Greece, was obliged to submit 
to a treaty which was dictated by the six great powers of Europe. 
So after the war between Russia and Turkey a few years ago, 
Russia was victorious and began to outline the tenns of peace, 
but a dark figure loomed up— the concert of Europe— England, 
Germany, France, Austria, and Italy. A congress was called at 
Berlin, a famous congress in the diplomatic history of the world. 
Beaconsfield and Bismarck and other great statesmen represent- 
ing the countries of Europe were there, and though Russia had 
overpowered Turkey in actual battle, the treaty of peace was made 
upon compromise terms acceptable to the other great powers. 

Now, when we go into the Philippine Islands we become close 
neighbors to Russia, Germany, England, and France, and we will 
no more be satisfied with what we have than thev are. Some 
American statesman will rise up and say we are as much entitled 
to a share of China as they are, and we will have the power to 
take what we want. Then we will be invited to a conference with 
the powers of Europe. 

Mr. President, do you suppose the people of this conntry would 
submit to that? No. We never would agree to submit the result 
of our victories in war to the arbitration of other nations, and our 
position would be certain to lead to hostile contests between the 
United States and the powers of the Old World. We would be on 
the rim of difficulty all the time. 
When we go to the Philippine Islands, we take our place on the 

4165 



12 

Sea of China. France is there. England is there, Russia is there, 
Germany is there. Trouble will be certain to ensue, and it will 
not be long in coming. In my judgment twenty years will not 
elapse until we will be driven into hostile conflict with one or all 
the great European nations. 

What will be the main theater of the war? Where will the 
fighting take place? Inevitably in Chinese waters or upon Chinese 
territory. 

Now, I have great faith in the energy, in the ability, and in the 
strength of the American people. I know our resources are tre- 
mendous. BiTt we must never lose sight of the important fact 
that one of the reasons why the other nations of the earth have 
heretofore been unwilling and unable to measure arms with the 
United States is because of the fact that we have stood here in a 
great continental area and serenity, and the countries of the Old 
World could not find a place to strike us. They dared not seek to 
invade us, and hence they shrank from encountering the dangers 
of a war with this Republic. 

But whenever we take the Philippine Islands we have f urnislied 
to the world a place to strike us. It will be our one weak point. 
If we enter into an alliance with England, as is proposed here by 
some, we will have to take part in the division of China or take 
side against the partition of China. In either case we will be 
obliged to go across the sea and fight our future battles with the 
powers of the Old World at a place which they and not we will 
select. 

In such a contest we will be at great disadvantage. A Russian 
Government railroad will soon be finished from St. Petersburg to 
the Pacific Ocean and Sea of China. It will be within the power 
of the Russian Empire to send train load after train load of sol- 
diers from St. Petersburg— its capital — to its remotest limits and 
debark them close to the Philippines or upon the soil of China. 
We can not transport our soldiers by railroad. We will load 
ships at San Francisco or at some other American port and send 
oiTr soldiers across the Pacific Ocean, make a landing, and then 
measure arms with the continental powers of the Eastern Hem- 
isphere. The difference of facilities would be against us in pro- 
portions so tremendous that I shrink from such an imdertaking. 

Mr. President, we should take some observations from experi- 
ence. I remember in reading history one very remarkable in- 
stance of the utter folly of enabling your adversary to select the 
theater of war. After Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia and 
left his army bleeding lapon her plains of snow, no power in Europe 
dared to undertake another Russian invasion. For a half century 
Russia was deemed impregnable. But in an evil hour she set up 
certain rights upon the Black Sea. Then England and Franco 
saw their opportunity. 

When Russia set up these rights upon the Black Sea, as a mat- 
ter of course she had to enforce them. England and France found 
it in their power to select the place where the fighting should oc- 
cur, and when the Crimean war ended Russia was forced to agree 
to a peace that cost her more prestige than any other event in her 
history. 

It has been boldly avowed upon this floor that we should go into 
an alliance with England and fight Russia or Germany or any com- 
bination of European powers which should seek to partition the 
Chinese Empire. What does all that mean? It means war. in- 
describable, unending war. Why should we cast the American 

41Q-} 



13 

destiny upon a sea which is bound to brin;^ our people into bloody 
conflict with the powers of the Old World? It is a dreadful re- 
sponsibility to propose at this hour of our history. 

The last civil war has already cost the people of the United 
States over $10,000,000,000; the wars of Europe during the present 
century have cost the people of Europe over $100,000,000,000, and 
the end is not yet. Shall we gather nothing from this exi^erience? 
Shall we go headlong into a policy which has brought the Euro- 
pean masses into a state almost equivalent to despair? 

So dreadful has this burden grown that not long ago the Czar 
of Russia proposed a conference to consider plans for a general 
disarmament. We all know that no disarmament will take place. 
The powers of Europe must keep up great standing armies to 
watch each other. Why watch each other? Because they are in 
close neighborhood and every neighbor striving to gain advantage 
in territorial acquisition. What brought on the war between the 
United States and Spain? It was because of the neighborhood of 
Cuba to this country. If Cuba had been 7,000 miles away, we 
would never have had war with Spain, and no crisis such as that 
which now faces its would exist. 

Now, whenever we go to the Philippine Islands we become neigh- 
bors to France, to Russia, and to Germany, and the very fact of 
our neighborhood will keep us perpetually in danger of conflict. 
But it is said, If all this be true, why is it that England, France, 
Germany, and other countries are engaged in a mad race for co- 
lonial territory? The reasons are many; some of them partly 
sound and others purely the result of imitation. 

England and Germany have for a long time been vexed with 
the problem of a superabundant population. England has gone 
so far, at different times, as to actually assist immigration to the 
United States and other parts of the world. 

France has been led into the same policy on the theory of finding 
new markets, but those who have studied the problem maturely 
believe that France has not gained and will not gain anything of 
solid value from her exi^eriment. 

Besides, these countries are not self-sustaining. They do not 
have, like the United States, such a variety of soil and climate that 
within their own borders one industry can exchange its products 
for that of the other and a comfortable living be made practicable 
for all without calling into requisition foreign trade. 

England and Germany could not live without the wheat which 
comes from other countries. They could not thrive without the 
cotton which grows in other countries. The dependence of 
European nations upon the United States for these great staples 
of agricultural production has long been the subject of discontent 
among the thinkers who rule English and German affairs. 

But why should England, Germany, and France be held up to the 
United States as objects of our imitation? 

Are laborers paid better in England and Germany than they are 
in the United States? Are the masses of Europe more comfortable 
than the masses of this Republic? 

If in the short period of our history we have reached a height 
of power far above that held by other civilized nations, why should 
we now take up their policies? 

Where has the world ever witnessed such another record as that 
made by this Union under the fostering principles we are now 
about to abandon? 

But, Mr. President, the question is asked with an air of coufi- 

4163 



14 

dence, as if it presented a difficulty which could not be overcome, 
•'What are j'ou going to do with the Philippines?" It is even 
claimed in debate that we possess only a choice of alternatives; 
on the one hand, to take the Philippines as a part of our territory, 
or, on the other, to leave them to the dominion of Spain. This is 
mere assumption. We should do neither one thing nor the other. 
If we were under no specific obligations to the present insurgent 
forces in the Philippines it would be our duty, in view of the prin- 
ciples so long and proudly held by the American Union, to provide 
for independent government by the peoi^le concerned and leave 
them to their just destiny. 

But the case is still stronger. The evidence published in con- 
nection with the treaty shows conclusively that Aguinaldo and 
his forces were of steady, valuable support to the American com- 
manders. The same evidence shows that these people looked upon 
themselves as the allies of the United States and believed faith- 
fully thai they Avere to be the beneficiaries of a joint success. I 
know not how it may impress others, but there seems to me some- 
thing shameful in now turning to the Filipinos and saying to 
them, "You were not our allies; j'ou were our tools; you were the 
victims of our diplomacy. We were merely using you, and our 
consuls and commanders were instructed privately not to commit 
this Government in a way which would deny lis the privilege of 
ordering the fate of the Philippines without regard to your wishes. " 

Men talk about our moral duties to the world, about what we 
owe to England and to China and the peace of mankind, but it 
seems to me that a great nation of intelligence and power owes to 
a weak and trustful people like the Filipinos the duty of respect- 
ing our engagement with them in the same sense in which they 
understood it. There is no danger either to the peace of the world 
or the prestige of our Republic in taking this course. 

It has been said upon tins floor that if we aided the Philippine 
people to establish an independent government Germany, France, 
Russia, or England would seize these islands. But the truth is 
that this difficulty is entirely unreal. 

It would be easy for us to treat the Philippine Islands as we 
treat Liberia. That Republic is not on the Western Hemisphere. 
We do not claim that it falls under the influence of the Monroe 
doctrine. It is located on the coast of Africa, where Germanj-, 
England, and France are pushing forward for new territory. 

We never have undertaken to exercise the slightest sovereignty 
over Liberia. Yet we have had occasion to define a policy in 
regard to it. I read from Wharton's Digest of International Law, 
section 6G, from a letter dated April 21, 1W80, written by Mr. Evarts, 
while Secretary of State, to Mr. Hoppin: 

Tho United States are not avorso to having the great powers know that 
they publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them and Liberia, and 
that they are prepared to talie every proper step to maintain them. To this 
end it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr. Lowell also, on his return to his 
post from his present leave, should evince a lively interest in tlie movements 
of both Great Britain and P'rance in the neighborhood of Liberia. 

While Wharton does not publish the entire letter, I find, on 
examining the files of the State Department, a further expression 
in the same letter which may be usefully quoted here: 

The attitude of the European powers which may have established them- 
selves in tho vicinity of Liberia becomes of interest to tho United States 
whenever it may assume a tendency to disparage the asserted rights of 
native self-control. 
41,;5 



15 

In 1S84 a letter was wi-itten on the same genoral subject by Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, to Mr. Roustan, the French 
minister. Wharton quotes a part of that letter also, as follows: 

Liberia, although not a colony of tho United States— 

We claimed no jurisdiction over it whatever — 

be^an its independent career as an offshoot of this country, which bears to 
it a quasi-parental relationship, which authorizes the United States to inter- 
pose its Kood offices in any contest between Liberia and a foreign state, and 
a refusal to give! the United Statos an opportunity to bo heard for this pur- 
pose would make "an unfavorable impression in the minds of the Qovem- 
mcnt and the people of tho United States." 

In the same letter it is said: 

It seems, however, proper that I should in the name of this Government 
advise you provisionally that the United States would consiiler a Frinich 
claim to territory in tho Mannali River as threatening the integrity and tran- 
quillity of Liberia. I should, however, be most hai)py to learn that the report 
of French occupation of Keuts Island is unfounded. 

On another occasion, in 1880, Mr. Evarts, while Secretary of 
State, wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, in which he called attention to 
the information which had been received here that the French 
Government had designs of establishing a protectorate over the 
Liberian Republic. 

Mr. Noyes, the American minister to France, replied that on 
making inquiry lie had discovered that there was no intention 
on the part of the French Government to institute a protectorate 
over Liberia. That letter was published in the volume of "For- 
eign Relations of the United States" for 1879, and Mr. Noyes, 
having ascertained in advance that it would be published, sug- 
gested that it was unnecessary to put the correspondence in print. 
But our Government declined to heed his suggestion, and it was 
said: 

It is therefore quite suitable that the great powers should know that the 
United States publicly recognize those relations which we bear to Liberia, 
and is prepared to take every proper step to maintain them. 

Mr. President, our entire interest in Liberia has been put on 
the ground that it was settled by Africans who left this country, 
and a hint from us has never failed to arrest all designs cherished 
by European nations against this little Republic. 

Now, if we go into the Philippine Islands and give those people 
their just inheritance of independence, our Government can say 
rightfully to the world that the people of the Philippine Islands 
established their liberty by aid of our arms; they sustained us in 
the war against Spain, and we shall therefore always regard them 
as objects of our parental care. Not one of the powers of Europe 
would dare to make the slightest aggression upon the independent 
government of the Philippines at the hazard of our displeasure. 

The claim that we must either take the treaty as it is or sub- 
ject ourselves to tremendous consequences of difficulty with Spain 
is another unreal conception in connection with this situation. 
Spain has no money, no navy, no hopes; and whenever the United 
States sav, "You must make the same relinquishment in regard 
to the Philippine Islands that you have made in regard to Cuba," 
she will instantly yield to our pleasure and close up a war which 
has advertised alike her folly and wealmess. 

But Senators say we can attend to all these questions after we 
have ratified the treaty. 

Mr. President, he is but a poor student of human nature who 
depends too much upon his own firmness of purpose in dealing 
4165 



16 

with gi-eat and constant questions in a great ami constant way. 
The people of the United States never have given up a foot of ter- 
ritory. The smallest acquisition becomes a matter of pride after 
it once becomes a part of the Republic. When two or five years 
from now it is proposed to give up the Philippines the Senator 
from Colorado |Mr. Teller], or some other Senator, will rise to 
say that if you give them up Germany will take them, or England 
will take them, or Russia will take them, and you will always 
have this scarecrow of foreign interference in the affairs of the 
Philippine Islands to deter us from acting in the way our better 
judgment might suggest. 

But if you will adopt a resolution or amendment to the treaty 
which explicitly defines our relation to those people, then you will 
have a fulcrum upon which the moral sentiment of this country 
can work. Even the boldest adventurer of expansion will feel 
abashed when reminded that we ought to give the Filipinos inde- 
pendent government because we solemnly promised to do so when 
we made the treaty with Spain. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President 

Mr. CHILTON. I want to get through so as to give the Senator 
from Colorado an opportunity to speak. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I wish merely to ask a question. How can 
you do that thing when objection is made to the consideration of 
a resolution? 

Mr. CHILTON. That has all been explained. A resolution 
which shall be effective is now out of the question. We can 
amend the treaty; and if we do amend it, ratification will be 
certain. 

Let us make no pretexts. Let us not trample upon the aspira- 
tions of the Philippine people to imitate the character of this 
Republic. 

Itls a stirring thing to read of great generals and heroic admi- 
rals, of sieges, battles, and victories, but after the music and the 
march have passed by, after the dance of delirium has worn us 
out, there will come a time of reckoning and mourning. I can 
but think of what will fall to our people in future years. After 
we have vindicated, by great sacrifice of the treasure and blood of 
America, our ability toineasure arms with the powers of Europe 
in their schemes of colonization upon the Eastern Hemisphere, I 
feel that the good folks at home are going to be the sufferers for 
all time— sufferers in purse, suffers in morals, sufferers in insti- 
tutions. 

I am one of those who believe in a Pro\idence which cares for 
the destiny of collective millions. I feel that our toilers have out- 
stripped all others and grown greater in a century than nations 
that have lived a thousand years, not alone because we have more 
energy and more brain than those who dwell in other lands, btit 
because we have been the justest nation of all history. In this 
great crisis let us show to all hearts and all time that the Ameri- 
can Republic still furnishes the world's best example of righteous 
rulers and a free people. 
4165 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 632 7 



LiUKHKY Ul- CUriUKt:>i> 



013 744 632 7 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



